You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.
Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat.Text: 646-586-5283
In a medical emergency, call 911.
More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 16,251–16,275 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 651 of 1086)· 28,180 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)
From OpenAlex; 13,658 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.
We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.
Mildly demented LBD patients had a significant deficit judging narratives compared to non-demented patients, but this deficit was not correlated with MMSE. 4 key findings →
Blood cadmium, lead, neurofilament light (NfL) chain, total tau (TTau), and amyloid beta (Aβ) 40 and Aβ42 concentrations were measured in 1516 participants in the Beaver Dam Offspring Study. 4 key findings →
Subtle changes in objective spatial navigation ability have been observed in the preclinical stage of Alzheimer disease (AD) cross-sectionally and have been found to predict clinical progression. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Brain and behavior·2026-09-01
Cognitive impairment is an important non-motor manifestation of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), particularly across the ALS-frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD) spectrum. 4 key findings →
CSF samples were retrospectively collected from 253 subjects recruited at Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University, and Beijing Tiantan Hospital between July 2013 and September 2019. 4 key findings →
Late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD), the most common form of dementia among older adults, is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by brain amyloid-β (Aβ) plaque deposition and neurofibrillary tangles. 4 key findings →
Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) has emerged as a promising biomarker of astrocytic reactivity in preclinical Alzheimer´s Disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Swiss medical weekly·2020-11-01
In October 2019, a Swiss panel of experts met for the Dementia Summit in Brunnen, Switzerland, to discuss the latest scientific findings on basic and clinical research, as well as practical and political approaches to the challenges of dementia disorders in Switzerland. 4 key findings →
In this study we investigated impaired awareness of cognitive deficits in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is the most common dementia in the elderly, and the potential of peripheral biochemical markers as complementary tools in the neuropsychiatric evaluation of these patients has claimed further attention. 4 key findings →
We surveyed the medical records of outpatients meeting the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria for probable DAT who were able to complete the Cognitive Difficulties Scale (CDS) and had a close informant relative (IR) who could complete the family form of the same questionnaire. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·L'Encephale·2005-01-01
Knowledge of cognitive performance earlier in life is essential in order to characterize precisely the extent to which these abilities have declined when an individual is diagnosed as having a dementing illness. 4 key findings →
The purpose of this study was to explore the structure of the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) for informal caregivers of patients suffering from AD or related disorders, and to examine the relations of the dimensions found with functional disabilities and other patient health indicators. 4 key findings →
We investigated possible abnormalities in the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macula lutea of patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and tested for any correlation with the severity of dementia. 4 key findings →
In addition, we examined whether anosognosia had an impact on the agreement between patient and informant ratings of QoL and whether anosognosia, dementia severity, depression and behavioural symptoms were significantly correlated to QoL in early AD. 4 key findings →
The NUCOG was undertaken with the MMSE on a total of 347 individuals, with 82 subjects in the control group and 265 in the patient group. 4 key findings →
With a rapidly aging population, general practitioners are confronting the challenge of how to determine those who are at greatest risk for dementia and potentially need more specialized follow-up to mitigate symptoms early in its course. 4 key findings →
Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription
label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled.
Show only studies that are free to read
How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped
This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor,
and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a
scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the
difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself,
so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.
Journal tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup to 2 pts
Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we
could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be
worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science,
Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed
journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the
tier-3 journals apart.
Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a
missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores
zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and
the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed
article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or
a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.
We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not
work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by
that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.
The score is computed from the published data alone and is
reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.
See the whole rubric drawn out →
— four charts covering all 28,180 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap
bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on
stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.
What this library is — and isn't
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of
it. It holds 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here,
that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.
1,034 records (3.7% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 of those are preprints posted before any
journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card
on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a
peer-reviewed article.